And this makes more sense than putting the money into State Schools?

[non sociopath skin]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jan/31/private-schools-nationalised-academies

These are hard times for those of us whose IQs are above single figures.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

The Skin

[T_i_B]

1. IMHO, nationalizing a private school that can't pay it's way

is much preferable to letting that school close.

And surely education is a sector more deserving of most of a wee bail-out?

[Albus]

2. I agree. If a private school were to fail then it's pupils

would likely have to be accommodated in the state sector anyway.

So if the school is taken over by the state there will be no need to provide the extra infrastructure required.

Also, presumably failing private schools will be failing because of a lack of fee paying pupils and so will have plenty of capacity for more pupils.

[LeftishBrit]

3. Surely nationalizing a private school turns it into a state school?

I don't know how or whether this will work; but I am more worried about the increasing privatization of state schools and other state institutions.

[non sociopath skin]

4. It turns it into an Academy.

And that's not good news in my book.

Surely the reason the school is failing is because the fee-payers don't rate it. So why bail it out?

We didn't bail out Woolworth's, did we?

The Skin

[Albus]

5. Well, in the midst of a recession, the reason fee paying schools may be

failing could be that parents can no longer find the fees.

And no, we didn't bail out Woolworths but then, we are not obliged to provide pick & mix and DVDs to the nations children are we?

[non sociopath skin]

7. But we already meet our nation's obligation to make educational provision ...

... for all children.

So why are we supposed to subsidise parents who say, "I want Junior to be educated in small classes among our kind of people" but who can't now pay for the privilege?

The Skin

[Albus]

8. Presumably any nationalised schools will be taking more pupils and will not

select on ability or parents ability to pay?

And as to meeting the nations obligation for educational provision, well, that's a moot point.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jan/24/books.politics


I dare say that the parents who still want Junior to be educated privately and can still afford the fees will take their sprogs elsewhere.

[non sociopath skin]

9. Precisely.

So let the less efficient private schools wither on the vine, and put the money where it's needed.

The Skin

[Albus]

10. I don't follow your logic.

The state has to provide school places for children not in private schools.

So if some private schools are forced to close for economic reasons, it will have to accommodate those extra kids somewhere.

Where are they supposed to go?

Would it be more efficient to build new schools (or expand existing ones), recruit staff, etc or to simply take over the existing private schools and make them state schools?

[Mark Baker]

11. While I'm strongly opposed to academies in general

my main complaint about them is that they're run either by religious loonies or by profit-making companies, or both. If instead these are going to be run by whoever currently runs them as private schools (generally charitable trusts of some kind), I don't see that's much of a problem.

I'd rather they were LEA controlled, but given this government's dislike of local authorities the fact that they won't be is unsurprising.

[fedsron2us]

6. But what will happen to poor Quentin when he has to share a class with the kids from Bash Street

Already happening, of course, regardless of whether these schools get turned into academies or not.